[HorusRant] As for the whole 'explaining how the world works' thing... Who knows the facts, anyway? Too many stories, especially sci-fi and fantasy, explain 'objectively' how the story world is put together as if revealed by some all-knowing entity. I guess the author wants to feel powerful in his own imagined universe by simplifying it, or just abuse a chance to peddle his own world views as if they were universal truths. "Fact" is that nobody on this planet could ever agree on how our own world is put together -- why should the characters in your story be any different? Even celebrated classics like LOTR and Narnia make this big mistake, imho. [/HorusRant]
To some, this is part of the appeal of Fantasy/Sci-fi. In fact, if you replace "how to world is put together" with "the motivations behind people's actions" then it's part of the appeal of fiction as a whole. Also, the real world has physicists who know how the world works and is put together better than most. If you replace the study of science with the study of magic, then it's not too unusual for characters in fantasy worlds to know how their world is put together. To me, it would really depend on how relevant it is to the story that he dislikes prostitutes. If he's going to meet another (or the same) prostitute later and it will be relevant to the plot, then the example you gave would be great (imo), but if your only goal is to show what kind of character he is, then your example would be way too much showing for me. The fact that the author spent that much time on the encounter would make me expect it to be relevant to the plot, and if it wasn't, I would feel (very slightly) cheated.
I guess it's just a difference of opinion. I consider getting to know the characters as important a reason for reading a book as the narrative. P.S. Cecil - do you really consider 188 words to be "that much time"? P.P.S. And would you really remember such an encounter by the end of the book (at which point you'll realise there's been no other mention of prostitutes)? Wouldn't it just act as a passing device to let you know what kind of man Joe was as you're getting to know him?
I guess we just differ in how me think those two elements should be balanced in a book, because they are both important. To me, the shorter example where he walks past one pub and goes into another tells me almost just as much about the character, but it uses less time. The longer example you gave does tell us a bit more, such as how he talks to people he dislikes (the way he is still pretty civil with her even though she's a prostitute). So I guess it isn't a bad way to show the character, it just isn't the way I would have done it. It's enough time that I might expect some level of importance later on, however, I'm more accustomed to short stories in which writing space is more precious. And you're right, by the time I finished the novel, I probably would have forgotten all about it. But if I ever re-read it, when I got to that scene I would be like "oh yeah, this never goes anywhere does it?" Either way, I've never read a perfect book and I'm sure as heck never gonna write one, so if I read that scene in a novel, it's not like it would ruin the whole experience for me. Anyway, I was only expressing my preferences, I never meant to imply that mine were in any way superior to yours.
No, no, that's fine. One has to remember that when one is writing a book, one isn't just writing it for oneself, so all opinions are valid. To be honest, I never really considered the re-read. Those kinds of scenes would be more of a drag if you were re-reading the book - you'd just want to get right to the action. P.S. I've also just thought - it would be important to the story that Joe was a very moral man who disliked prostitutes. It is also as much to do with describing the city in which he lives - rife with crime and immoral behaviour. So it's not the case that that scene is just thrown in for no reason. I probably didn't make that clear enough before. Again, I'm not trying to say I'm right and you're wrong - I'm just defending my position
Enter any random philosophy forum and prepare to duck permanently for the mud throwing. And even in our post-enlightenment era, you have large groups of people who persistently claim that recent history never happened, or that the world is only 6000 years old, or that every human has an alien in their chest, or that a random old book was penned by the hand of an all-powerful entity. People kill each other over this crap -- why should they be any more rational and enlightened in a dark age fantasy world?
I always struggle with exposition too. Dialogue? I'm good. Action? Not great, but I can do it. Exposition? I struggle. My writing sometimes comes out as just reams and reams of dialogue. I try to keep in mind what Stephen King said in "On Writing." He said the paragraph is the basic building block of a story. I try to remember that with every paragraph I write. Every one should contribute in some way.
This is true, but it's also true that entire stories take place in our world in which philosophical debates about the nature of the universe never even come up. Unless characters both disagree about how the world works and that disagreement is plot relevant, I think it's pretty safe to have an "implied" reality. If the leading authority among all of your characters says the world was created by a flying bear shark, it should be fine if the opposing sect on the neighboring continent who believes in the big bang never even gets mentioned, or if the fact that Bob doesn't believe in it never comes up. Furthermore, in fantasy worlds, the "way the world works" is sometimes observable. In our own world we may kill each other over which deity/phenomenon is responsible for the universe, but if the great bear shark makes regular appearances in a story and performs repeatable miracles all the time, and no other entity that people might believe in is doing that, then it makes sense that there wouldn't be as much disagreement about the nature of the world in that story. Of course, there would be dissenters in that fictional world, that's inevitable, but they're a minority and they aren't important to the plot, so who cares about them? Also, some people like fiction specifically because it can create an artificial reality in which all the answers are available, in which one philosophy is (at least in theory) provably correct. Just because our own world has a history of bloody religious wars doesn't mean an imaginary world made for entertainment needs to, especially not if the "message" of the story is political, or domestic, or something else.
